The British Library

List of lascars in the homeward bound crew of the East Indiaman Walthamstow from Bengal in 1810.

What had led to their destitution? Foreign shipping was one factor. The EIC, too, blamed foreign ships, prompting one correspondent, 'Humanus', to urge the Company to use its powers to stop 'foreign' captains dumping lascar crews in Britain, while at the same time imploring the public's charity. Others claimed that the lascars had been brought to England by the navy and blamed the government for neglecting them. But the most important factor was the question of responsibility for their maintenance in England. The EIC no longer built its own ships, but, from 1639, chartered vessels for its trade with India. Disputes frequently occurred between ship-owners and the Directors over the extent of their responsibility. Without support networks, ignorant of the English language and customs that would have given them some prospect of employment, and unable to get parish relief as they did not come under the existing framework of Poor Laws (which arranged for the return of the pauper to his parish of settlement, whereas lascars were between voyages), they were forced to beg, 'in silent attitudes and gestures more eloquent than language'.

By the winter of 1785-6, the condition of lascars reached crisis levels. Without warm clothing, lodgings or provision, several lascars died. Nine months after concern first surfaced, on 5 January 1786 The Public Advertiser reported that a 'Quartern Loaf' was being provided to every distressed 'Asiatic Black'. On 7 January a subscription for their benefit had begun. Initially, the ad hoc Committee of Gentlemen aimed to provide temporary relief only. But the public's generosity prompted them to go 'much further' in order to prevent future suffering, and a meeting was called for that purpose at Mr Faulder's in Bond Street. This was the background to the formation of the Subscribers for the Relief of the Distressed Blacks (i.e., lascars).

Who were the 'Gentlemen' behind this initiative? They included businessmen of 'considerable standing in the world of finance', philanthropists like Jonas Hanway and MPs. The majority of the subscribers were rich, but donations also came from the clergy, as well as ordinary people, male and female, some anonymous, but all contributing their 'mite'. Begun as a charity to help distressed lascars, having learnt of a 'considerable' number of African and West Indian blacks, the Committee widened its scope to become the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor. Who were the Black Poor? First there were the Asians: the lascars and servants abandoned without a return passage (the Company's bond scheme notwithstanding) and found 'daily begging for a passage back'. Second, the blacks: seamen discharged in Britain, the former (now free) slave-servants of planter families and the black American Loyalists. Humanitarian instincts aside, it is likely that the public's generous financial response had been prompted by the presence of black American Loyalists who had fought with Britain. One contemporary noted: 'the Lascars and other East Indian mendicants demand our pity only; but the African Negroes have an actual claim on our justice ... '.

	Ready Reference
	Sierra Leone Nova Scotia The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

As the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor had realised, relief was no answer to the problem of black poverty. The solution, however, was suggested by some of the Black Poor themselves: they expressed a wish to return to Nova Scotia or Halifax. From then on the Committee, too, appears to have embraced the idea of an overseas settlement, in 'some parts of his Majesty's Dominions' best suited to 'their constitutions'--such as Sierra Leone. At the same time, the Committee publicly announced that such a step would 'effectually relieve' the Black Poor, and simultaneously render 'considerable advantage to the Police of this country', a motive which appears suspect. Whether the Committee really believed this, or used it to attract funds, is open to question. At this stage, though the lascars are not mentioned, it is assumed that the plan applied to them too. Why did lascars choose to go to Sierra Leone? The 'Back to Africa' appeal would not have cut much ice with them, but the prospect of land and a better future might be one reason. Another reason could be the length of time spent away from India. Some were married to white women, too, so re-entry into India might not have been easy.

After a five-month delay, 441 emigrants--black men, women and children; white men and women, and a handful of lascars--sailed for Sierra Leone. Towards the end of May 1787, the settlers arrived in Sierra Leone, where a sad fate awaited them. In the words of Olaudah Equiano:

... they reached Sierra Leone just at the commencement of the rains. At that season of the year it is impossible to cultivate the lands; their provisions therefore were exhausted before they could derive any benefit from agriculture; and it is not surprising that many, especially the lascars, whose constitutions are very tender, and who have been cooped up in ships from October to June ... should be so wasted by their confinement as not long to survive it.

Another source is provided by Captain Thompson, who had accompanied the settlers. Dated 30 December 1788, it shows that a few lascars, like their black colleagues, ran away; some died, while a minority were still alive. Were the Black Poor 'ejected' from the country in a hurry? The balance of evidence suggests otherwise. The problem of lascars is more complex. As a matter of policy and for political reasons, 'to prevent reflections on us ... from the people of India', the Company, as a last resort, repatriated destitute Indians. Further, under the 1783 Regulation, the Company's administration in India insisted on 'proper indemnification bonds' for a return passage to prevent lascars (and Indian servants) remaining in Britain and being thrown on the Company's charge.

Pending a return passage, lascars had to be maintained in Britain. The EIC claimed that responsibility lay with the ship-owners and the Company should take charge only in case of 'necessity'. It also claimed that prior to 1795, 'the owners of the Company's ships were allowed £1 per ton' for the maintenance and return of lascars. From 1795, however, as a result of complaints from the lascars--and from the public that lascars were not kept under control--the Company, concerned 'only' for the welfare of the lascars and the public's convenience, took over responsibility. Two procedures were introduced: first, instructions were drawn up for commanders of Europe-bound ships concerning lascar diet (rice, dal, spices, vegetables), medical care and clothing (two pairs of jackets and trousers, mittens, caps, shoes and bedding of three blankets sewn together). Second, premises were contracted in East London to house them.

Did such regulations improve lascar life aboard ships? Indirect evidence suggests otherwise. Lascar sickness and mortality rates remained high. Sickness and mortality were not the only indicators of the evasion of the 1795 regulations. The 1802 report on two 'Country' ships, the Union and the Perseverance, gave such shocking details of floggings, beatings and ill-usage of their lascar crews that the Committee of Shipping could not 'help shuddering at the inhumanity' of those in charge. No wonder then that lascars deserted, both on the way to and in England.

The 1823 Merchant Shipping Act ('Lascar Act') re-confirmed the racial division between British subjects, first introduced in 1814, that for the purpose of the Navigation Acts lascars were not British citizens. The 1823 Act also abolished the system of bonding. Instead, any lascar convicted of vagrancy was to be repatriated by the Company, and reimbursed by the ship-owners responsible for bringing the lascar to Britain.

	Ready Reference
	India India, officially Republic of India, republic (1995 est. pop. 936,546,000), 1,261,810 sq mi (3,268,090 sq km), S Asia. The second most populous country in the world, it is also sometimes called Bharat, its ancient name. India's land frontier (c.9,500 mi/15,290 km long) stretches from the Arabian Sea on the west to the Bay of Bengal on the east and touches Pakistan (west); China, Nepal, and Bhutan (north); Bangladesh, which forms an enclave in the northeast; and Myanmar (east). NEW DELHI is India's capital and BOMBAY [now called MUMBAI] its largest city. Full Entry Reproduced with permission from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2000 Columbia University Press. All Rights Reserved.

The effect of the 1823 Act was to place lascars at the bottom of the imperial hierarchy of maritime labour. According to several contemporary commentators, no similar enactments applied to 'the Krooman of Africa ... the Negroes of the West Indies, and ... all other colonial subjects', who were regarded 'as much British seamen as a white man would be'. The racial division had several consequences: first, lascar wages remained far below those received by British and other colonial seamen. Second, lascars could not be discharged in Britain, but were paid off in India. Further, because the 1823 Act was not repealed until 1963, the legal minimum standard of accommodation for lascars on board ships, their contractual position and diet scales lagged far behind those of white seamen.

What lay behind such a discriminatory treatment of lascars in law? Contemporaries claimed that it was designed to protect lascars. They claimed that the Act was passed in the 'spirit of humanity', the 'simple confiding character of the Hindoo' making it necessary for legislation to intervene on their behalf in a way 'no other class of our fellow subject' required. There were alarmist claims that if lascars were discharged in Britain, they would become a drain on the Poor Rate and the charity of the public, and, if the public or private charity did not provide for them, they would 'starve and die in the streets'. Finally, contemporaries claimed that ships crewed by lascars sailed at 'a cheaper rate than a British ship', but only so long as they remained in warmer climates. They claimed that, since lascars did not possess 'the stamina of a British sailor', in colder seas more lascars were needed, as many as double the number of whites, adding to the expense.

Such claims to humanitarian motives do not really stand up. The main reason appears to have been partly economic protectionism. As Bob Hepple points out, the roots of discrimination lay in the 'relative cheapness per head' of lascars in the Eastern seas. As early as 1711, one contemporary writer expressed his fear of competition on the Cape route. According to him, the 'most pernicious project' was 'learning the Moors the way about the Cape of Good Hope, which I look on as a blot, that, once hit, would give them a great deal of trouble to remove'. He warned merchants to be 'cautious, how they bring home the ships with lascars'. There was also a political motive. The EIC's concern for its standing in India has already been noted. As Company rule expanded and more of India came under British control, the political motive of maintaining British prestige became even stronger.